Housing debate instigates verbal sparring match
10:20am Thursday 18th October 2007
By David Connop Price »
A HEATED debate saw rival councillors trade verbal punches over the future of housing in Basingstoke.
Politicians from the Labour and Conservative groups clashed over how best to meet the needs of the 5,306 people waiting for social housing and how to cope with the thousands of homes that need to be built in the borough in the coming years.
Labour councillors repeated their accusation that the Conservative Cabinet's plan to build 448 flats at Gresley Road was creating a future ghetto.
If approved, the deal is thought to be worth more than £20million to the borough council.
Councillor Paul Harvey, who led the former Labour-Liberal Democrat administration, prompted the latest round of debating over housing.
His motion asked the full council to agree the borough had had enough flat-only developments to meet the previous need and that more family homes were now required.
It also asked councillors to acknowledge that north Hampshire needed more employment land.
Cllr Harvey said the administration was planning to build 1,400 flats in the next three years.
"The Government's housing targets don't mean we only have to build flats," said Cllr Harvey.
"It was the right decision to build flats in the town centre, but enough is enough."
He claimed the Cabinet could meet Government targets with well-planned communities that left 91 per cent of the borough as rural countryside.
Fellow Labour councillor Laura James said: "As a large land-owning council, we must not be seduced by greater financial rewards to develop small flatted units."
Referring to Gresley Road, Labour councillor Mary Brian said: "Before you know it, that's going to become a ghetto."
In response, the Conservatives accused Labour councillors of adopting their own opposition to flats.
Council leader Cllr John Leek said: "We can, and should, work together to deliver the needs of the community and this council can take a lead in delivering the right homes in the right places. That, Cllr Harvey, is Conservative policy and I'm delighted you can support it."
He added that the Gresley Road site is not the right place for family homes, but is the right place to provide affordable homes for some of the people who would work in Basing View - which the council wants to redevelop.
Conservative group leader Cllr Mark Ruffell said: "This Conservative administration will not bottle a decision on Gresley Road because they want some of the proceeds to be reinvested in developing this borough."
Cllr Horace Mitchell, Cabinet member for planning and transport, said the administration was in a housing numbers "straightjacket".
And referring to Gresley Road, fellow Conservative Cllr Rob Donnell added: "It's a direct consequence of central Government targets on Basingstoke that we have to do this development."
The council agreed to send Cllr Harvey's motion to the sustainable communities overview committee for further consideration.
- Have your say on the future of housing in Basingstoke - add your comments below
Your Say YourGazette
Simon Preedy, says...
1:04pm Thu 18 Oct 07
My concern is with the housing mix (Flats not affordable Houses) and the shere number of Flats (448!) proposed in the Gresley Road location, especially with regard to the lack of investment in infrastructure from Central Government.
Conservative MP Maria Miller said: We need the right type of homes in the right places. If Maria has already voiced her opposition to this development, proposed by our Conservative-run Council, surely she must agree that these are the wrong types of homes in the wrong place, and the "wrong amount" in that location too?
After the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the proposed Manydown MDA out of the Local Plan, due to it being unsustainable, even the then B&DBC Leader (Labour Cllr Paul Harvey) & Deputy Leader (Lib Dem Cllr Brian Gurden) said in a joint statement:
So even they agreed there was a lack of investment / lack of commitment of investment in infrastructure in Basingstoke from our Labour Government! Has their "call for a commitment from Central Government for infrastructure investment in Basingstoke" for "today and in the future" yet materialised? I think not, but can they tell me any different?
Central Government failed to give its tacit support to a Tory-sponsored Bill, supported by Maria Miller, that called for it to become mandatory for local authorities and the Government to agree on infrastructure requirements needed to support large housing developments - and who will pay for them - before work starts rather than afterwards. Another common-sense Bill that was not supported by Central Government!
In my opinion, we are now overwhelmed with developments of Flats. We now need affordable houses, but not before we have commitment from Central Government for the investment in infrastructure necessary to sustain these major developments.
Perhaps our Tory Council's thinking is to propose developments elsewhere in the town so as to releave some of the pressure from them having to release the Manydown land for housing, given the pressure and directives that are coming from Central Government?
Conservative MP Maria Miller said: We need the right type of homes in the right places. If Maria has already voiced her opposition to this development, proposed by our Conservative-run Council, surely she must agree that these are the wrong types of homes in the wrong place, and the "wrong amount" in that location too?
After the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the proposed Manydown MDA out of the Local Plan, due to it being unsustainable, even the then B&DBC Leader (Labour Cllr Paul Harvey) & Deputy Leader (Lib Dem Cllr Brian Gurden) said in a joint statement:
...The Council is already calling for a clear commitment from Central Government for infrastructure investment to meet the needs of Basingstoke and Deane - both today and in the future...
So even they agreed there was a lack of investment / lack of commitment of investment in infrastructure in Basingstoke from our Labour Government! Has their "call for a commitment from Central Government for infrastructure investment in Basingstoke" for "today and in the future" yet materialised? I think not, but can they tell me any different?
Central Government failed to give its tacit support to a Tory-sponsored Bill, supported by Maria Miller, that called for it to become mandatory for local authorities and the Government to agree on infrastructure requirements needed to support large housing developments - and who will pay for them - before work starts rather than afterwards. Another common-sense Bill that was not supported by Central Government!
In my opinion, we are now overwhelmed with developments of Flats. We now need affordable houses, but not before we have commitment from Central Government for the investment in infrastructure necessary to sustain these major developments.
Perhaps our Tory Council's thinking is to propose developments elsewhere in the town so as to releave some of the pressure from them having to release the Manydown land for housing, given the pressure and directives that are coming from Central Government?
Carlos Tilbury, says...
2:13pm Thu 18 Oct 07
Simon has good points, my irritation is that the Tory Council is completely unbalanced, they say one thing and then U turn.
Bottom line is this, too many flats and not enough houses, flats are left unsold in Basingstoke and the agents are having to knock off 20 - 30k to get any interest from the public, the Tory councillors ask Knight Frank to advise them what to build on there, how dumb is that!
We have 5000 people on the housing list and nearly 700 empty dwellings in B & D.
They are not listening to what people want and I feel that they are hiding behind this blameing Central Government spin, I watched the meeting from last thursday and I can tell you, there wasn't much talk of Central Government, they where all patting themselves what a great idea this is and that this is what people want, and it isnt, they have not asked any voters!
My guess is that there is more than one tory councillor that opposes this, but their to worried to speak out, my advice is speak out and earn the respect.
This idea will go through and they will except the bid, but I guess once the developer gets the land he will change the design.
Its really time for voters to understand whats going on at local level politics as boring as it sounds, but once you see whats going on you'll be gob smacked at what you see.
Bottom line is this, too many flats and not enough houses, flats are left unsold in Basingstoke and the agents are having to knock off 20 - 30k to get any interest from the public, the Tory councillors ask Knight Frank to advise them what to build on there, how dumb is that!
We have 5000 people on the housing list and nearly 700 empty dwellings in B & D.
They are not listening to what people want and I feel that they are hiding behind this blameing Central Government spin, I watched the meeting from last thursday and I can tell you, there wasn't much talk of Central Government, they where all patting themselves what a great idea this is and that this is what people want, and it isnt, they have not asked any voters!
My guess is that there is more than one tory councillor that opposes this, but their to worried to speak out, my advice is speak out and earn the respect.
This idea will go through and they will except the bid, but I guess once the developer gets the land he will change the design.
Its really time for voters to understand whats going on at local level politics as boring as it sounds, but once you see whats going on you'll be gob smacked at what you see.
Paul Harvey, Basingstoke says...
3:06pm Thu 18 Oct 07
For the record, this is what I said at full council:
"We have brought this motion because we are concerned with the direction the Cabinet are going. You are currently proposing developments that are contrary to the local plan and supplementary planning documents youve adopted. This administration is planning to build this year and in the next two years 1,400 flats. That yearly figure is double what the Labour/Liberal Administration built.
Over the last 7 years we have delivered a housing strategy that was rated as excellent by the CPA.
We delivered a local plan which has been awarded Beacon Status.
Clearly the strategic view matters and it is worrying that your piecemeal approach is unpicking that hard work. It sends out the wrong message to our partners and developers.
The bottom line is that the cabinet should follow the councils policies, not pick and choose the ones they want to follow when it suits them.
You said in opposition that you were concerned about the number of one and two bed flats, which you opposed and consistently voted against.
Now you have the opportunity to put your policy into action, but you are failing to give any civic leadership, its all made up based on what the developer tells you, not what you tell the developer.
And you cant blame the government because you arent following their clear guidance either. PPS 3 is the government guidance on house building and it says;
It provides an enabling framework for local planning authorities, working with their stakeholders, including developers, to deliver both the right quantity of housing to address need and demand in their areas, and the right quality and mix of housing for their communities.
Creating places, streets and spaces which meet the needs of people and maintain and improve local character.
Yvette Cooper has said that the Governments Policy is that,
Today our new homes must be part of well-designed and mixed communities with excellent local facilities. That means more family homes, as well as parks and green spaces. And with the urgent challenge of climate change, they must be greener homes, built to the highest environmental standards.
The Governments housing targets dont mean that we only have to build flats. It was the right decision to build flats in the Town Centre, but enough is enough.
We have so much land in our borough, even if we build up to the Governments targets only 9% of our Borough will have been built on. 91% will remain rural countryside. So we can choose to build homes in well planned communities differently.
We shouldnt forget the purpose of our local plan. Its a key role for the local plan to identify where housing development will and will not be acceptable. Not all sites are suitable for residential.
Its a land use document which regulates the development and use of land in the public interest. It should reconcile the demand for development & enhancement of the environment, social well being and economy of an area.
We identified in our housing surveys of 2001, 03, 04 and 05 that there was a stock imbalance with a lack of smaller two bedroom flats. The evidence led us to increase percentage of two bedroom dwellings built as proportion of all new dwellings from 39% in 2002/03, to 51% in 2004/05, and 73% in 2005/06. We delivered what was needed.
The Local Plan Inspector recognised this and moved the policy on, He was clear in November 2005 that the wording of the previous policy be replaced and simplified. He recommended that the overall range of small units should be between 30 and 50%, with the higher end of that range on sites adjoining centres of settlements.
So we shifted the Housing Mix Policy accordingly, we started the shift away towards larger homes and a better mix. You adopted that Policy when you adopted the Local Plan in July 2006.
Housing need is continually evolving. We need to be responsive to these changes making our decisions based on the evidence and the market assessment.
But we also have to recognise our economic priorities.
Hampshire County Council in their advice to the South East England Regional Assembly has said that an additional 40-60 hectares of employment land is required in the North of Hampshire, centered largely on Basingstoke.
The loss of employment sites would be contrary to the identification of Basingstoke as a Diamond for Economic Growth as detailed in a report to the Borough Councils Economic and Community Development Committee in January 2007.
You have the powers, the policies and the opportunity because we are the third largest landowning council in the country to lead the way. You have in trust the peoples land to help deliver the peoples needs, not selling sites to the highest bidder. That is your choice and no one else. You are the decision makers.
My housing need is a one bed unit, but I dont live in flat, but guess what I live in a property with a garden, front and back, and a car parking space. I dont own I rent. Need doesnt always have to equate to flats.
Micro Flats that are no bigger than a garage are not the way forward. We know we can do much better than that."
"We have brought this motion because we are concerned with the direction the Cabinet are going. You are currently proposing developments that are contrary to the local plan and supplementary planning documents youve adopted. This administration is planning to build this year and in the next two years 1,400 flats. That yearly figure is double what the Labour/Liberal Administration built.
Over the last 7 years we have delivered a housing strategy that was rated as excellent by the CPA.
We delivered a local plan which has been awarded Beacon Status.
Clearly the strategic view matters and it is worrying that your piecemeal approach is unpicking that hard work. It sends out the wrong message to our partners and developers.
The bottom line is that the cabinet should follow the councils policies, not pick and choose the ones they want to follow when it suits them.
You said in opposition that you were concerned about the number of one and two bed flats, which you opposed and consistently voted against.
Now you have the opportunity to put your policy into action, but you are failing to give any civic leadership, its all made up based on what the developer tells you, not what you tell the developer.
And you cant blame the government because you arent following their clear guidance either. PPS 3 is the government guidance on house building and it says;
It provides an enabling framework for local planning authorities, working with their stakeholders, including developers, to deliver both the right quantity of housing to address need and demand in their areas, and the right quality and mix of housing for their communities.
Creating places, streets and spaces which meet the needs of people and maintain and improve local character.
Yvette Cooper has said that the Governments Policy is that,
Today our new homes must be part of well-designed and mixed communities with excellent local facilities. That means more family homes, as well as parks and green spaces. And with the urgent challenge of climate change, they must be greener homes, built to the highest environmental standards.
The Governments housing targets dont mean that we only have to build flats. It was the right decision to build flats in the Town Centre, but enough is enough.
We have so much land in our borough, even if we build up to the Governments targets only 9% of our Borough will have been built on. 91% will remain rural countryside. So we can choose to build homes in well planned communities differently.
We shouldnt forget the purpose of our local plan. Its a key role for the local plan to identify where housing development will and will not be acceptable. Not all sites are suitable for residential.
Its a land use document which regulates the development and use of land in the public interest. It should reconcile the demand for development & enhancement of the environment, social well being and economy of an area.
We identified in our housing surveys of 2001, 03, 04 and 05 that there was a stock imbalance with a lack of smaller two bedroom flats. The evidence led us to increase percentage of two bedroom dwellings built as proportion of all new dwellings from 39% in 2002/03, to 51% in 2004/05, and 73% in 2005/06. We delivered what was needed.
The Local Plan Inspector recognised this and moved the policy on, He was clear in November 2005 that the wording of the previous policy be replaced and simplified. He recommended that the overall range of small units should be between 30 and 50%, with the higher end of that range on sites adjoining centres of settlements.
So we shifted the Housing Mix Policy accordingly, we started the shift away towards larger homes and a better mix. You adopted that Policy when you adopted the Local Plan in July 2006.
Housing need is continually evolving. We need to be responsive to these changes making our decisions based on the evidence and the market assessment.
But we also have to recognise our economic priorities.
Hampshire County Council in their advice to the South East England Regional Assembly has said that an additional 40-60 hectares of employment land is required in the North of Hampshire, centered largely on Basingstoke.
The loss of employment sites would be contrary to the identification of Basingstoke as a Diamond for Economic Growth as detailed in a report to the Borough Councils Economic and Community Development Committee in January 2007.
You have the powers, the policies and the opportunity because we are the third largest landowning council in the country to lead the way. You have in trust the peoples land to help deliver the peoples needs, not selling sites to the highest bidder. That is your choice and no one else. You are the decision makers.
My housing need is a one bed unit, but I dont live in flat, but guess what I live in a property with a garden, front and back, and a car parking space. I dont own I rent. Need doesnt always have to equate to flats.
Micro Flats that are no bigger than a garage are not the way forward. We know we can do much better than that."
Carlos Tilbury, says...
10:05pm Thu 18 Oct 07
Thanks for that Paul, can I just give you some respect for not throwing any buns back at the Tories at the last meeting, it was shameful to hear and see what was going on in the chamber, Cllr Leek and his friends had a few days to think of there childlish charade answers to your questions, they should of spent the time thinking of the problem they are going to cause if this development goes ahead.
My local estate agent spoke to me today and said that its a scandel if Gresley Rd goes ahead, but what can we do if only a small amount of people are in control of major issues like this that effect all of us in the future.
Its my understanding that the old Brook house building might be redeveloped into flats as well, is this true?
My local estate agent spoke to me today and said that its a scandel if Gresley Rd goes ahead, but what can we do if only a small amount of people are in control of major issues like this that effect all of us in the future.
Its my understanding that the old Brook house building might be redeveloped into flats as well, is this true?
Jane, Winklebury says...
10:55pm Thu 18 Oct 07
put to 1 side for a minute that its flats on Gresley Road....the thought of building anything for people to live on at a site that has train lines on 2 sides and a ringway on the 3rd side is just bizarre...its almost criminal...its not connected to anything...Norn Hill Bridge is a nightmare now never mind when you've got a thousand people coming in out of the road.....its just stupid
Carlos Tilbury, says...
11:07pm Thu 18 Oct 07
Hi Jane
**** right, I'm trying to get this message out to as many pepole as possible, people wants houses not tiny shoe boxes, people need to move about, if you goto skyline plaza and see how big they are, I thought they where tiny and now micro flats!!!
**** right, I'm trying to get this message out to as many pepole as possible, people wants houses not tiny shoe boxes, people need to move about, if you goto skyline plaza and see how big they are, I thought they where tiny and now micro flats!!!
Simon Preedy, says...
8:19am Fri 19 Oct 07
Yes Carlos, a proposal was banded about to build 82 Flats on the Brook House site... and Maria Miller MP was opposed to that too (!), as per the Gazette's article in June: "MP slams bid to convert eyesore into new flats" - see link: http://archive.basin
gstokegazette.co.uk/
2007/6/4/115412.html
Well done for getting on Kestrel FM this morning. You came across very well!
gstokegazette.co.uk/
2007/6/4/115412.html
Well done for getting on Kestrel FM this morning. You came across very well!
Simon Preedy, says...
8:33am Fri 19 Oct 07
Jane, Winklebury wrote:
And it will not be helped by lack of investment in infrastructure necessary to sustain this development if it does get the go-ahead, be it approved by the Council or the Planning Inspectorate!
put to 1 side for a minute that its flats on Gresley Road....the thought of building anything for people to live on at a site that has train lines on 2 sides and a ringway on the 3rd side is just bizarre...its almost criminal...its not connected to anything...Norn Hill Bridge is a nightmare now never mind when you've got a thousand people coming in out of the road.....its just stupid
And it will not be helped by lack of investment in infrastructure necessary to sustain this development if it does get the go-ahead, be it approved by the Council or the Planning Inspectorate!
Carlos Tilbury, says...
9:43am Fri 19 Oct 07
Hi Simon
Blimey, they put it on! I'll have a listen, I'm going to visit the Gresley Rd site this morning to see how small it is!
Did anyone see "the truth about the housing market" last night, it was very interesting.
Blimey, they put it on! I'll have a listen, I'm going to visit the Gresley Rd site this morning to see how small it is!
Did anyone see "the truth about the housing market" last night, it was very interesting.
Local, Local says...
11:15am Fri 19 Oct 07
Carlos - I totally agree with your comments
Its really time for voters to understand whats going on at local level politics as boring as it sounds, but once you see whats going on you'll be gob smacked at what you see. Yes they would be shocked!!
As per your comments ref bun throwing - its frustrates the bejeebas out of me that they would rather score a childish point than actually talk about the problem. If these people have day jobs i'd be shocked to see them behave like that in a work situation! GET ON WITH IT!
RESULTS are still required and I for one am not bothered who looks good or has the biggest slight against the oppo - the problem is there, it needs discussing - it needs resolution and MORE VOTERS need to be asked what they want!
Its really time for voters to understand whats going on at local level politics as boring as it sounds, but once you see whats going on you'll be gob smacked at what you see. Yes they would be shocked!!
As per your comments ref bun throwing - its frustrates the bejeebas out of me that they would rather score a childish point than actually talk about the problem. If these people have day jobs i'd be shocked to see them behave like that in a work situation! GET ON WITH IT!
RESULTS are still required and I for one am not bothered who looks good or has the biggest slight against the oppo - the problem is there, it needs discussing - it needs resolution and MORE VOTERS need to be asked what they want!
Carlos Tilbury, says...
11:58am Fri 19 Oct 07
Hi Local
Couldn't agree more, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would make a massive contribution to local politics, maybe they dont understand they dont need quailifications, they need passion, I was reading the Popley forum last night and it was great to see a vibrant community with every one getting involved.
I did visit the site at Gresley rd this morning and it was frightening to picture whats been proposed there, I urge people to go have a look, it will give you a better understanding of how small the site is.
I know that I feature alot on these forums, but I believe its my duty to keep this in the public eye, maybe the more the word gets out then the more councillors might listen.
Couldn't agree more, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would make a massive contribution to local politics, maybe they dont understand they dont need quailifications, they need passion, I was reading the Popley forum last night and it was great to see a vibrant community with every one getting involved.
I did visit the site at Gresley rd this morning and it was frightening to picture whats been proposed there, I urge people to go have a look, it will give you a better understanding of how small the site is.
I know that I feature alot on these forums, but I believe its my duty to keep this in the public eye, maybe the more the word gets out then the more councillors might listen.
Darren, says...
9:58pm Fri 19 Oct 07
As long as they put a Waitrose who cares what they put there? I'm sorry to be in the "I've got my place" camp but so have thousands and thousands of families too. Roll on a better food shopping experience and lets hope they bulldoze Morrisons too.
Simon Preedy, says...
10:01am Sat 20 Oct 07
Darren wrote:
Darren,
I for one care what they put there, as I suspect do many others. Try looking at the bigger picture.
At the risk of being flippant, have you considered selling your property to a developer who will build on the site? Given the way things are going, you just might get PP for Flats! You could then relocate to a location situated, if you are fortunate, right next door to the Waitrose being proposed. Then we shall see how long you are prepared to stay there and suffer the poor infrastructure that I suspect will be associated with this proposed development, and the parking difficulties, including the ASB and the vandalism that is sometimes associated around Supermarkets.
As long as they put a Waitrose who cares what they put there?
Darren,
I for one care what they put there, as I suspect do many others. Try looking at the bigger picture.
At the risk of being flippant, have you considered selling your property to a developer who will build on the site? Given the way things are going, you just might get PP for Flats! You could then relocate to a location situated, if you are fortunate, right next door to the Waitrose being proposed. Then we shall see how long you are prepared to stay there and suffer the poor infrastructure that I suspect will be associated with this proposed development, and the parking difficulties, including the ASB and the vandalism that is sometimes associated around Supermarkets.
Michael, says...
1:46pm Sat 20 Oct 07
The Gazette reports -
Yes I agree, but Cllr Donnell would agree to this development because, as a Winklebury Conservative Councillor, he doesn't wish to see Manydown built on and if they can meet their targets enforced on them by Central Government elsewhere in the Borough...
And referring to Gresley Road, fellow Conservative Cllr Rob Donnell added: "It's a direct consequence of central Government targets on Basingstoke that we have to do this development."
Yes I agree, but Cllr Donnell would agree to this development because, as a Winklebury Conservative Councillor, he doesn't wish to see Manydown built on and if they can meet their targets enforced on them by Central Government elsewhere in the Borough...
Carlos Tilbury, says...
2:17pm Sat 20 Oct 07
here here Simon, Darren you really dont know what your talking about, I actually like Morrisons because they do great pies!
Anyway I have this idea that Cllr Mitchell is going to build as many Highrises as possible, in the hope that one will be able to be seen for his house, which is in Penwood nr Newbury!!
Anyway I have this idea that Cllr Mitchell is going to build as many Highrises as possible, in the hope that one will be able to be seen for his house, which is in Penwood nr Newbury!!
Carlos Tilbury, says...
2:25pm Sat 20 Oct 07
Hi Micheal
I do agree that Central Gov could have been abit more positive, but its easy for the Tory councillors to hide behind this one and the government cant be blamed for everything, there is a NIMBY or NIMTBY as I like to call it (is T sands for tory) going on as you have pointed out.
I do agree that Central Gov could have been abit more positive, but its easy for the Tory councillors to hide behind this one and the government cant be blamed for everything, there is a NIMBY or NIMTBY as I like to call it (is T sands for tory) going on as you have pointed out.
Michael, says...
11:04am Sun 21 Oct 07
Carlos Tilbury wrote-
Indeed. Also our Labour Government are not helping by their housing targets and their wish to concrete over the South and South East of England. In my opinion, their targets should be more evenly spread throughout the country.
I do agree that Central Gov could have been abit more positive...
Indeed. Also our Labour Government are not helping by their housing targets and their wish to concrete over the South and South East of England. In my opinion, their targets should be more evenly spread throughout the country.
Simon Preedy, says...
1:05pm Sun 21 Oct 07
Yes Michael. It appears our current Government's wish it to cram everything into the South and South East. In my opinion, all regions should share in the prosperity of the UK. That means trying to encourage jobs and housing elsewhere too.
If all communities are allowed to grow at their natural pace, they can stay healthy. If you go to the Villages, residents there will say they don't want no development, only some development (ie: Hampshire Alliance for Rural Affordable Housing - HARAH - see: www.harah.org.uk ), designed to allow their young people to stay, otherwise the populations age and Villages lose their vibrancy. I am told a development of this nature has been built in Cliddesden Village.
Now that the PM has increased the numbers / timescales for home building, this will inevitably increase the danger of more greenfield sites being lost and Manydown being put back on the agenda. That will no doubt initiate the next stage of the Save Manydown Group's campaign.
If all communities are allowed to grow at their natural pace, they can stay healthy. If you go to the Villages, residents there will say they don't want no development, only some development (ie: Hampshire Alliance for Rural Affordable Housing - HARAH - see: www.harah.org.uk ), designed to allow their young people to stay, otherwise the populations age and Villages lose their vibrancy. I am told a development of this nature has been built in Cliddesden Village.
Now that the PM has increased the numbers / timescales for home building, this will inevitably increase the danger of more greenfield sites being lost and Manydown being put back on the agenda. That will no doubt initiate the next stage of the Save Manydown Group's campaign.
Jane, Winklebury says...
9:36pm Sun 21 Oct 07
Michael wrote:maybe so...but lets not get side tracked. I was talking to a borough councillor about the gresley road flats proposak. He said that the local plan which has in effect been signed off by the government has provision to give the borough the number of houses it needs in order to meet its targets. Gresley road isn't part of the local plan, this is an extra development being offered up by the local tories on top of what has already been agreed...he thinks its just an issue of money....its a windfall...this isn't something being driven from the centre.
Carlos Tilbury wrote-I do agree that Central Gov could have been abit more positive...Indeed. Also our Labour Government are not helping by their housing targets and their wish to concrete over the South and South East of England. In my opinion, their targets should be more evenly spread throughout the country.
Carlos Tilbury, says...
10:19pm Sun 21 Oct 07
I totally agree Jane, this is driven by the local tories, and what also shocks me is the plan to build in Cavalair rd in Old Basing, the government inspectors have view the site and said a big fat NO, but guess what the local officers say yes! so the tories will let that one happen as well, lets see if they use " its not us, its the labour government" on that one! theres an article in the Basingstoke Observer about it and if you go to the Tories Parties main website you'll see how Cameron is trying to stop the Garden land grab.
There is just some many bizare things pasted, it makes me wonder and I know that this site isnt in the local plan!
But all this moaning and activity really doesnt get me anywhere, still cant buy a house, rent is expensive and still have to wait at lest seven years on the council waiting list because I'm single.
So many issues that affect people like me and couples, this is why I'm doing my best to keep this all in the public eye.
I suggest that the councillors in oppisition set up in Festival place pointing this out.
There is just some many bizare things pasted, it makes me wonder and I know that this site isnt in the local plan!
But all this moaning and activity really doesnt get me anywhere, still cant buy a house, rent is expensive and still have to wait at lest seven years on the council waiting list because I'm single.
So many issues that affect people like me and couples, this is why I'm doing my best to keep this all in the public eye.
I suggest that the councillors in oppisition set up in Festival place pointing this out.
Simon Preedy, says...
11:34pm Sun 21 Oct 07
Did one or t'other of the planning apps for the development at Cavalier Road, Old Basing, get approval then - BDB/66695 & 66696? Currently it's not that clear from the B&DBC website, which I expect will be properly updated this week.
I often wonder if Council Planning Officers / Development Control Committees approve planning applications simply because they do not believe any material planning applications given to refuse them will be robust enough to stand up against any Appeal that maybe forthcoming. If the Planning Inspectorate reverses their refuses and allows them at Appeal, I am told it costs the Council (and its' taxpayers) money, be it the Planning Inspector is following Government Planning Guidance or not?
I often wonder if Council Planning Officers / Development Control Committees approve planning applications simply because they do not believe any material planning applications given to refuse them will be robust enough to stand up against any Appeal that maybe forthcoming. If the Planning Inspectorate reverses their refuses and allows them at Appeal, I am told it costs the Council (and its' taxpayers) money, be it the Planning Inspector is following Government Planning Guidance or not?
Simon Preedy, says...
11:58pm Sun 21 Oct 07
Opps, sorry for the dupe entry. Hope the Gazette sees it and deletes one entry!
I also meant to type material planning considerations as oppsed to applications too!
I also meant to type material planning considerations as oppsed to applications too!
Jo Walke, says...
12:54pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Indeed Simon, it often appears that this council (irrespective of which party has majority - they take their end q's from the planning department)lives in fear of being over-ruled on appeal!
This site doesn't have to be built on in such a fashion - the question of what to build has become a hot potatoe purely because BDBC have decided to sell it !!
It also wont stop these blasted housing quota's from coming either.
Noone can say either that people who would live in these flats would work in a revamped Basing View. Take a good look around Basingstoke - there are already lots more vacant business properties than there ever used to be and quite a few of these could do with a niced revamp too...or perhaps a change of usage !?!
Carlos ought to note also that its not just single people who have to wait so many years for an affordable property on this councils waiting list.
It really is time that the bun-fighting stopped, you lot got on with the job of doing whats right for Basingstoke, that includes listening more to residents opinions, needs and following through with the ideas upon which you would have individually been elected - not just what's right as far as your own political party is concerned.
This site doesn't have to be built on in such a fashion - the question of what to build has become a hot potatoe purely because BDBC have decided to sell it !!
It also wont stop these blasted housing quota's from coming either.
Noone can say either that people who would live in these flats would work in a revamped Basing View. Take a good look around Basingstoke - there are already lots more vacant business properties than there ever used to be and quite a few of these could do with a niced revamp too...or perhaps a change of usage !?!
Carlos ought to note also that its not just single people who have to wait so many years for an affordable property on this councils waiting list.
It really is time that the bun-fighting stopped, you lot got on with the job of doing whats right for Basingstoke, that includes listening more to residents opinions, needs and following through with the ideas upon which you would have individually been elected - not just what's right as far as your own political party is concerned.
Carlos Tilbury, says...
2:04pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Hi Jo
I totally agree with the waiting for housing, I really do understand that its not just single people, I have met many married couples and couples without kids that struggle, there is a total inbalance in the way the housing list from the council is dealt with, maybe we should start tackling the tricky questions that nobody wants to ask, and I'm not talking immigration, we have alot of people sponging off the system who are white and british born,
I ring the council evey week and they say "you will be waiting years before you get a place and dont understand why you call", I have 36 points, people offered houses are on over 100 or single teen mothers, there are real need cases that the coucil have to deal with and of course they should get a house, but the system needs overhauling!
I totally agree with the waiting for housing, I really do understand that its not just single people, I have met many married couples and couples without kids that struggle, there is a total inbalance in the way the housing list from the council is dealt with, maybe we should start tackling the tricky questions that nobody wants to ask, and I'm not talking immigration, we have alot of people sponging off the system who are white and british born,
I ring the council evey week and they say "you will be waiting years before you get a place and dont understand why you call", I have 36 points, people offered houses are on over 100 or single teen mothers, there are real need cases that the coucil have to deal with and of course they should get a house, but the system needs overhauling!
Jo Walke, says...
8:08pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Carlos you will doubtless be pleased to know that the council are reviewing the list...at least how they are going to compile it.
Changes are already afoot with regards to 'local connection' - now you will have to prove a local connection or be passed over in favour of those who can/have done.
Changes also include those who live out of the borough - if they work in Basingstoke they will only be eligible for local connection points if they have been employed in Basingstoke for 12mths also those claiming a local connection based on the fact that they have lived in the borough previously will now have a 'time limit' to their claim for local connection points.
Cant help but think these are efforts at slimming the list.
Given that there is also a further option available for certain affordable housing tennants that will allow them to buy shares in the property they currently rent (never mind no right to buy or aquire this is different!)will also see a further reduction in affordable housing stock within the borough.
Another reason why there is an increase in the number of houses being converted to flats by private landlords is because this council is actually providing grant money with which they can afford to do it!!
Changes are already afoot with regards to 'local connection' - now you will have to prove a local connection or be passed over in favour of those who can/have done.
Changes also include those who live out of the borough - if they work in Basingstoke they will only be eligible for local connection points if they have been employed in Basingstoke for 12mths also those claiming a local connection based on the fact that they have lived in the borough previously will now have a 'time limit' to their claim for local connection points.
Cant help but think these are efforts at slimming the list.
Given that there is also a further option available for certain affordable housing tennants that will allow them to buy shares in the property they currently rent (never mind no right to buy or aquire this is different!)will also see a further reduction in affordable housing stock within the borough.
Another reason why there is an increase in the number of houses being converted to flats by private landlords is because this council is actually providing grant money with which they can afford to do it!!
Carlos Tilbury, says...
11:47pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Well it will take some sliming, 5306 according to the observer, lets hope the system works.
But thats just one problem that needs tackling, with more flats in the pipeline that know one needs, all the highrises have been pulled down and now we're building more, its time for a mix of houses that people want.
But thats just one problem that needs tackling, with more flats in the pipeline that know one needs, all the highrises have been pulled down and now we're building more, its time for a mix of houses that people want.
Jo Walke, says...
4:12pm Tue 23 Oct 07
The list that is kept by the Council is called the Housing Needs Register - not all of that 5k on the list can be classified as actually 'in-need'.
But you are right, there are many people who are able to 'work the system'.
The reason so many flats were built into the housing mix of recent years stemed from the fact that there was an imbalance - Basingstoke had higher than the national average of houses and all surveys pointed to a need to support single person households/smaller households but it is clear, and something that is supposed to be happening, that more housing of 3+ bedrooms is once again required.
Also it's not everyone who wants 'social housing' many are happy to rent privately and have the shortfall in rent paid for them by way of housing benefit.
But you are right, there are many people who are able to 'work the system'.
The reason so many flats were built into the housing mix of recent years stemed from the fact that there was an imbalance - Basingstoke had higher than the national average of houses and all surveys pointed to a need to support single person households/smaller households but it is clear, and something that is supposed to be happening, that more housing of 3+ bedrooms is once again required.
Also it's not everyone who wants 'social housing' many are happy to rent privately and have the shortfall in rent paid for them by way of housing benefit.
Carlos Tilbury, says...
4:33pm Tue 23 Oct 07
I agree, its a aweful problem, I dont know your situation but I guess you will be like me, no chance of a house but have to pay for others, I want the council to give houses to the needy, but cut off this hand out state we're in.
I'm sick of this situation, I live at home because I cant afford anything, 10 year waiting time for a house on the council list, who in there right mind would want to date me!!!!
I'm sick of this situation, I live at home because I cant afford anything, 10 year waiting time for a house on the council list, who in there right mind would want to date me!!!!
Your sayYourGazette
Add your comment
Register for a FREE Basingstoke Gazette account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
In this section
- Campaign warns drivers about drinking dangers
- Basingstoke man threatened with knife
- Basingstoke football thug is caged
- Thief strikes at dental surgery
- School and community hall opened by prince
- Criminals targeted in two-day crackdown
- Superstore exhibition opens to the public
- Humps are here to stay
- Proposals seek to increase council charges
- Hospital plan in pipeline
Sponsored Links
Editor's Choice
Changeling (15)
NOTHING grips the nation’s collective attention more than a news story involving a child.
Robert De Niro interview
HOLLYWOOD legend Robert De Niro talks about his latest film What Just Happened?
Hospital plan in pipeline
A NEW state-of-the-art hospital could be on the cards for the people of Basingstoke and north Hampshire within the next five years.
The end of the line for red telephone boxes?
THEY are an iconic part of British life – but the end could be nigh for 22 red telephone boxes in the Basingstoke borough.
Green graphics firm puts new trophy in its cabinet
A TRAILBLAZING borough firm has added another major award to its trophy cabinet.
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Darren, Old Basing says...
11:06am Thu 18 Oct 07